GURPREET SINGH Vs. JAI SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been directed against order dated 09.10.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot whereby an application filed by Maghar Singh son of Bikkar Singh under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') for impleading him as a party in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by Gurpreet Singh-petitioner to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.07.2008 passed in civil suit No.9 of 02.05.2012/22.08.2009 has been allowed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Jai Singh - respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell purported to be executed by Gurpreet Singh and the said suit culminated in ex parte decree dated 22.07.2008. Jai Singh - decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree and in those proceedings, a sale deed was executed in favour of Jai Singh through process of the Court in pursuance of the ex parte decree dated 22.07.2008. Gurpreet Singh - petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. In those proceedings, Maghar Singh - respondent No.2 filed the instant application under Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as a respondent and the same has been wrongly and illegally allowed by the trial Court. It is argued with vehemence that as Maghar Singh was not party to the ex parte decree sought to be set aside by taking recourse to appropriate remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Maghar Singh is neither a proper much less a necessary party to the proceedings at present pending before the trial Court. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgments of this Court Vivek Malhotra Vs. Ajit Kaur Gill and others, 2016 2 RCR(Civ) 65 and Jaswinder Kaur Vs. Avtar Singh, 2000 4 RCR(Civ) 604.

(3.) Counsel for the contesting respondent- Maghar Singh, on the contrary, has supported the impugned order with the submissions that in the pending execution proceedings, a compromise was effected between Jai Singh and Gurpreet Singh on 12.12.2008, compromise deed was executed, statement of parties were recorded in the Court, possession of land was delivered to Jai Singh. As per compromise, Jai Singh got entered and sanctioned mutation and khasra girdawari was also recorded in his favour. Thereafter, Jai Singh sold land measuring 16 kanal 19 marlas to Maghar Singh for Rs.15,40,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 08.03.2011 and possession was delivered to the applicant. Subsequent thereto, Gurpreet Singh - petitioner/ JD in order to play fraud with the respondent/applicant in connivance with Jai Singh filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It is further argued that allegations with regard to collusion between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is manifest from the statement dated 14.06.2012 got recorded by Jai Singh, vendor of the respondent, whereby he stated that the ex parte decree be set aside, the main suit be dismissed and the sale deed be treated as cancelled. It is vehemently argued that as Gurpreet Singh and Jai Singh have joined hands to cause loss to the respondent, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application by appreciating the facts on record in right perspective. In addition, it is submitted that a serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent in case he is not allowed to contest the proceedings.